[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by djbass

For all intents and purposes they are the same card.

No, they're not. Here's a way they're different:

ONE COSTS TWICE AS MUCH AS THE OTHER. When you're making an argument based on price, this is somewhat important.

Yes, I'm using bold. It is because you're dramatically wrong, again.

(If you want another example of how they're different, the 8800GT uses the 65nm G92 core, the GTX uses the 90nm G80 core).

Originally Posted by djbass

The point is not in its processing power, but rather that which Kenny so perfectly nailed on the head, this card, and its architechure are over a year old. Yes the 8800GT is more affordable than its predecessor ever was, but I see it as being too little too late.

You might, noone else sees it as "too little, too late". DX10 is, as you say, for the most part an afterthought in this generation of cards - and in many ways it'll not be center stage for the next year or so. Right now there are two games I'd really consider as "using" (as opposed to things like Company of Heroes, where the difference isn't that great) DX10 - Bioshock and Crysis.

An important thing to note here is that, were he not to buy an 8800GT, the card to buy would be one of the new ATi 3800 series - which is also a DX10.0 card. It's like dismissing one kind of bread because it's not gluten free when the next best alternative is also not gluten free.

Originally Posted by djbass

ATI aren't going to sit and wait around for their competitor to release a next-gen card, by the same token Nvidia aren't going to wait for their competitor to trump them.

You could use the "there's something a bit better coming along in the next six months" argument at pretty much any point in computing in the last decade. Unless there's a release scheduled in the immediate future (see: new C2D's tomorrow) waiting around is utterly pointless because you'll never have a computer at all.

Originally Posted by djbass

$200 (AUD) vs $400-500 (AUD), which would place your values in the same range as mine. Are you going to base your entire rebuttal on splitting hairs?

Launch price for the 4200Ti was ~$200 for the higher end. Launch price for 8800GT? Around $250 (as I have said). There's a bit of a difference there, but when you said "As a previous owner of a Geforce 4200 Ti I can contest that a sub $200 card can't even be compared for value to a $400-500 beast as the 8800GT." you were talking out of your arse yet again.

Originally Posted by djbass

Running games better comes with the territory. A 3DFX Voodoo 1 runs games better than a Cirrus Logic with 512Kb RAM, that doesn't mean buying a Voodoo 1 today would be value for money, what is your point exactly?

I dunno, maybe I was talking about it running games better than pretty much everything except the 8800GTX. I guess I wasn't though, if your argument is to make any sense.

Originally Posted by djbass

It is more in the region of how much better does it run, is it significant enough to justify the price difference.

OK, lets have a little mathematics lesson (god knows you need it).

The : in price:performance means it is a "ratio". A ratio is something that describes the proportional quantity of one thing to another. In this case, a higher price:performance ratio means that you are getting more performance per unit of currency. Shocking stuff! (I'm sure you'll agree.)

When I praised the 8800GT's "price:performance" that means that the price is justified by the improvements in performance!

So, in answer to your question: yes, the it is significant enough.

Originally Posted by djbass

I encourage smarter buying, by making sacrifices early on in order to reap the benifits later. If getting an 8800GTX is what makes him happy so be it, I'm indifferent either way.

This is precisely what I was advocating, god damn.

As an aside, the gains over things like the 2900XT aren't insignificant at lower resolutions - here's one demonstration of that, in an article entitled "The 8800GT: The only card that matters".